I was not able to get the processor above 40% utilization.
On a quad core system, 40% CPU = 1 core pegged (100%) and a second core at 60%. In other words, you simply didn't have enough going on concurrently. The reason why you didn't see a performance boost over that of a dual core system is because you never even pegged two cores, let alone four. This is exactly why most people will get zero (or nearly) benefit from a four core system. Heck, most games are still single threaded which means on dual core systems, the second CPU use mostly used to service device driver interrupts and maybe some audio processing. Probably helps smooth over all system latency but that's the biggest benefit most people will see from multiple cores.
Until we start to see a shift in programming in the market place, few people need dual cores, let alone quad cores.
Something else to consider, as most applications are single threaded, this means the only way concurrency can be increased is by running multiple applications (game + cd ripping + listening to mp3 + network game server). Running multiple applications means higher memory demands. As I still commonly see people buy systems with only 1GB of RAM or less, I'd argue this is yet another reason why few can take advantage of mutliple cores. Heck, these days, 512MB is used by the OS...so 1GB should be considered the minimum for even desktop users.
Yes, I'm fully aware there are exceptions...I've done a ton of SMP (8x) coding my self...so I understand what I'm talking about. Most of these exceptions tend to rare or professionally targetted.
Your primise makes for a better movie plot then reality. Sorry, nice try. But, let's say the improbable odds are beaten. Big deal. They still need arming codes. This means a police, FBI, CIA, SWAT, and/or military interception of a truck...a shoot out...and the bomb is back in our hands. Worse case, a 500lbs bomb is dropped near the truck, or 20mm chain gun is fired...containment is not lost...and it's back in our hands. The spies would then be rounded up...if they were still in the country and executed. End of story.
Like I said, makes for a great movie plot...just not realistic in the least.
Not if I could do it by dropping one bomb, especially if I thought I could always drop the second later if it proved necessary.
Some of the details are still debated by historians but I believe the second bomb was primarily used as a message to the USSR. Before the first bomb had been dropped, the Japenese had already indirectly signaled they were ready to talk surrender...conditionally; though it was unknow what that meant. The first bomb was then dropped. Somewhere in this time table, the USSR then declares war on Japan for the sole purpose of claiming territory. The Japenese were already, effectively defeated, save only for an actual invasion. While the USSR already knew we had atomic bombs in development (because of spies), IIRC, the dropping of the second bomb was leaked to the USSR through indirect channels. To me the political under pinnings are clear. While at the time, we were allies with the USSR, everyone understood it was more a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", type arrangement. To be clear, the USSR had disdain for the US even back then. They distrusted the US so much, the warning of Germany's attack arrived in plenty of time to counter it, yet it went completely unheaded. At the time, the USSR had a neutrality agreement in place with Germany.
In the long run, we needed a second front in the war on Germany so we supplied weapons of war and some logistics to them. Otherwise, they probably would have had their asses handed to them, despite Germany's complete stupidity and the horrid Russian winter.
Let's also not forget that immediately after WWII ended, Russia claimed half of Germany and attempted to claim all of it. This is what the Berlin Air Lift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_air_lift) was all about. And they did so with full intensions of claiming all of Germany, right our from under us. You need to remember, the USSR government was nothing but hostile asses despite being "allies"; before, during, and after the war.
The long of the short, the above is just the tip of the ice berg. I sincerely do believe dropping both bombs is easily justified, so long as the complete context is brought into light. If you seriously wonder about this stuff...there are probably a hundred books which cover different aspects of the politics surrounding the dropping of the bombs. I'm sure most of them will do a much better job of swaying you one way or the other then some loon, such as my self, on slashdot can do.;) Heck, just turn on the History Channel from time to time.
Just FYI, most people don't realize that every nuke has a return address. Every nuke has a unique radion signature which identifies its source of enrichment. Ever reactor enriches slightly differently. This tidbit needs to be shared with more of the world. That way it's understood, should a nuke make it way from say, NK (Iran), and explode within a friendly border, NK (Iran) would suddenly start to glow very brightly.
Actually, that name is known to history directly because of the meddling of other nations. Most people believe Hitler was able to rise to power as a direct result of post-WWI sanctions impossed on Germany.
This is not to say I believe we should leave countries unchecked...I'm just saying the chess piece can fall face up or face down.
Which brings up an interesting point -- why was "unconditional surrender" necessary?
Ultimately, it wasn't. We allowed them to keep their emperor and agreed to not persue as a war criminal. In the end, that dicision allowed for much more rapid reconstruction of post-war Japan.
Furthermore, was it necessary to drop 2 nukes? Wouldn't a single city have made the point?
I see that another poster already hit the nail on the head. It was a bluff. Its intent was to signal to Japan (and the USSR) that we had a huge stock pile of these weapons and if they did not surrender, we would destroy the entire country from the air. Truth is, we used the only two weapons we had and it would have been another 18-24 months (IIRC) before we could have another weapon ready. This is why we did not forewarn, as we were afraid the weapon would not work and had nothing to replace it.
the Nazis generally held a similar view of Jews at the time.
While rumors ran throughout the world, truth is, most did not believe (perhaps by desire) what had been done to the Jews until the war was over. Even those that rescued Jews toward the end of the war often had trouble grasping what it was they were seeing. Don't get me wrong, during WWII, no one loved Germans, but by in large they up held their war time obligations. On the other hand, the Japenese were strange, unknown, different color, fanatics, who fought to the death and often to the last man, have been known to eat enemy soldiers (during mid to later part of the war), worshiped a man-god, sometimes carried swords, and were more brutal to each other than we were to most prisoners. Don't think for a second that people thought the Germans were even in the same book as the Japenese. Remember, most of the time, the Japenese would not even take prisoners...they would execute them in the field...and when they did, they often tortured and/or killed them for fun. The Japenese often used prisoners for sword practice. For the most part, Germany actually tried to meet its obligations. So, to say it again, while the Germans were considered war savages, the Japenese were considered sub-human...and not because of propaganda. Propaganda only made the divide even wider.
So the end justifies *any* means?
Sounds like you didn't do the math.;) Given the choice, if you could save 300,000+ soldiers by dropping two bombs, would you do it? Remember, radiation sickness was not well understood and the true nature of the horror (RNA/DNA damage, mutation, blindness, horrid burns, etc) was only vaguely within grasp of the scientists which worked directly on the Manhattan Project. So given the choice between saving your own countrymen and killing people you would more than likely have to kill anyways...which would you pick? Since you seem to be crying for humanity, I assume the decision is obvious...just not easy...as it was for Truman at the time.
While this is a very odd thought, had we actually had to have invaded mainland Japan, and 300,000+ soldiers died, Truman himself could have been tried as a war criminal. As he had within his grasp to save those lives.
We had a just cause, but we did unjust things to achieve it.
War is never just. Period. I'm certainly not trying to justify every horrible action, on all sides, which were taken during the war. My comments are specifically focused on the use of the bombs on the Japenese. I believe it's very important to understand the nature of the enemy and the mindset of those involved at the time.
Lastly, which is a widely unpopular view, just imagine how many people's lives were ultimately saved by using nukes so early on. If the horrors were not understood, the world over, what are the odds you would have seen them used during the Korean Conflict? During the cold war? My personal belief is the use of those weapons on Japan saved 300,000+ soldiers, plus an untold more because the horror of their use has become imprinted in who we ar
It is possible that over the next few decades the US government will somehow change so that it would use nuclear weapons inappropriately.
Not likely. Odds are certainly greater than zero...but not by much.
It is possible that the use would be unintentional - either through malfunction in technology and command procedures, because someone with high level access turned out not to be trustworthy or simply because security measures were somehow inadequate.
Odds are much closer to zero than the first remark.
It is possible that the current US government would use nuclear weapons against a target that was not a population center such as a deep bunker.
Odds are already zero. Weapon advances have removed the need for this.
It is possible that some event will occur that at the time seems to be adequate justification for the use of nuclear weapons but that in hindsight it will not be.
This is certainly a legitimate concern. IMO, this is the only one worth entertaining.
Yes, we used them at the end of WW2 - to spare a couple of hundred thousand lives a traditional invasion would've cost.
Just wanted to realy stress this bit. Great post BTW.
At that time, we had plans on the drawing board to invade Japan. The death toll for the allies was expected to be between 200,000-300,000; though more modern estimates push it as high as half million. So saying 300,000+ is probably the right starting number. The Japenese were almost all fanatics and were taught they would be protecting their god. As such, every man, women, and child, big enough to reload a weapon had already been indoctrinated to their country's defense. Some were issued weapons and bullets. Some were given just bullets. Some were told to use the family sword. Others still, were trained how to charge with pitch forks. If you thought stories of Germany's use of Bazooka Boys toward the end of the war were scary, you need to understand what we were in for going into Japan. It would have been expected to see children as young as 8 or 9 to actively been engaged in resisting the invasion. As such, using nukes served many puposes. One, was to demoralize Japan as much as possible to force them to the table for unconditional surrender. The other was to destroy some part of Japan's war industry. Another was to destroy as many posible combatants for the loom invasion which lay ahead.
People need to understand that the Japenese had been told the Allies were coming to rape every women and pillage every village. They were told all men would be executed. And most women would be horribly raped and tortured before being executed. The people had every intention of fighting to their last breath. Every last one of them.
So long story short, anyone that throws out...blah...blah...I'm ignorant...the US used nukes before...blah...blah...only stress just how ignorant they are on the subject. So please, put things in context. People need to understand, at that point in time in history, there wasn't anything lower, nothing more sub-human that a "Jap". People need to remember that the Japenese had already proven to be fearless fighters, fighting to almost the last man standing...while starving...while being admitted cannibols. At that point in time, they had some come-uppens coming... We had a new weapon...and a just cause. You do the math.
The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?
Anyone with a brain? The US has had nukes longer than anyone and ONLY used them at the end of WWII. Many people love to toss the factoid out that the US has previously used nukes but fail to think how many lives that has saved. What???? Seriously...think about it! Ignoring a million other tidbits, I'll just add the following. Just imagine nukes existing and had never even been used in anger. Russia has them. England and France have them. Now then, do you think people would understand the horror of these weapons, having never seen the effects it had on the Japenese? Do you think the masses would have the least bit understanding of what it is they plot to unleash? In my opinion, chances are, if the US had NOT used nukes at the end of WWII, you would have seen them used en mass during the Korean Conflict, or during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or just out of stupidity between the US and Russia during the cold war.
Having said all that...the US has had nukes longer and has NOT used them, even during some seriously hairy times. If anything, the US has proven they are, by far, the MOST trustworthy when it comes to nuclear deployment.
What you don't realize is nuclear weapons, over time, loss their ability to sustain critical mass. That's why we have some many nuclear simulations (previously done with below ground testing) which verify specific categories of different ages can still do their thing. Their goal is to maintain viable weapons (repair or replace) and destroy the old weapons which will no longer be effective. In the long run, the US winds up with fewer, more reliable weapons.
The US has a long history of owning nukes and a short history of actually using them on an enemy; twice now, in the same war. The easy money is the US has no desire to use nukes, save only defensively. Any rogue state associated with a significant nuclear or biological attach will more than likely feel the sting of a nuclear attack, country-wide. In other words, for all but the most insane, partisans understand they will be countryless should they ever do the unthinkable. Which brings us full circle. Those that are not complete nut jobs but have bought into what the insane, ignorant are selling, do understand that if they aid such attacks, their entire country will be forever gone. Gone will be all they knew and loved. This in turn helps create internal pressures to keep things in check.
Exactly! People around the world seem to forget that part of our checks and balances includes limited terms and the clock is ticking down for our current goon-squad. Hell, Bush wouldn't even be in office except for the fact that the Democrats are so inept. So long as the Democrats can provide anything of an alternative (unlike last election), the Democrats will walk with the title. That will likely mean a huge shift in US politics.
No, I think he's saying the best means of combating propaganda is with your own propaganda machine. This was proven even during WWII. Misinformation and propaganda have ALWAYS played key themes modern warfare.
And frankly, as often as US news completely distort, twist, purposely misreport, refuse to report, spin, and generally f-up the news, I'm looking forward to an official propaganda machine to help balance out what the mainstream media can't get right; despite it being their job. And no, that does not mean I am looking forward to drinking from the government's teet. It means it should help pressure the media to do their f-n job correctly...the first time.
That's because arguing with a light pole isn't constructive. You and I both know you're not going to change your position. You're confused. Period. You're confused by the fact that MANY laws in this country are technically unconstitutional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are the law of the law.
As a technical note, I 100% agree with your point. As a matter of reality, you're completely wrong.
Good; because that cliche isn't valid, and never was.
Actually it was and always has been. Your statement seems to imply you don't understand but then you go on to explain that you do. Very odd.
The simple fact is, yelling "fire" and causing a panic is NOT protected as free speech. Period. Thusly, the cliche is completely valid. In other words, if you yell, "FIRE!", and people panic and cause damage, injury, or death to themselves or others, you can not hide behind "your right to free speech." The law is very clear on this. In other words, YOU become responsible for both the civil and criminal liabilities and can not NOT claim constitution protection to fend off civil and criminal charges resulting from your action.
You are right that yelling fire, in of its self, is not a crime, but that has never been what that cliched expression has been about...which suggests where your misunderstanding originates. To further hammer this home, it's often recommended to yell fire if one is being robbed, assaulted, or kidnapped. While you are still not protected by free speech, the circumstances surrounding the event is generally thought to mitigate both criminal and civil actions which may follow.
That was a joke/dry humor. I was commenting on the stupidity of people here that are too lazy to do something as simple as Google but will troll/reply stating that it's all lies because you didn't spoon feed them some link on the Internet, which may or may not be true/accurate.
Sounds like you don't have the required plugins installed. Yahoo mail works without problem with FF and has for years. If you're having problems, it is not a FF issue.
I'm sorry...but according to the/. masses, if you don't have a link, you're a troll and everything you said is untrue.;) I'm sorry, but since the masses generally can't be requested to google (or think) for themselves, they will be forced to hunt you down and kick your dog. If this behavior continues...they may even taunt you a second time.
Is it possible, under order of the state, all of North Korea jumped up and down at the same time; thusly providing for the measured activity. They could then release a little nuclear waste into the air for good measure?
And maintaining a jet rating requires constant recurrency training. Operation of a jet is also very costly. So to even be in the position to fly a VLJ, you need lots of free time, lots of money, and your will in good order. This is not to say VLJs are dangerous...they are not. VLJ are dangerous to the low time, low skilled pilots to which they appeal.
Anyone remember the "Doctor killer" planes fromm the 70's and 80's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza. Compared to a VLJ, Bo's are snails...and as a private pilot, I can tell you Bo's are highly sought after. I don't have a hard time imagining VLJs helping to thin the gene pool of pilots that have more time and money then they have brains and talent. And trust me when I say, there is no shortage of pilots that shouldn't be.
The handheld information I got from my brother. He's an Apache Longbow pilot in the Army and was deployed in Iraq. The other information was available via all mainstream press during the early days of the war. For citing a source...ummm...how about ALL news agencies!? Shesh.
And you have to be pretty clueless to not know Germany, France, China, and Russia (plus many others) all sell arms to many countries the US considers suspect, all the while maintaining healthy trade and political contact with the US. This is hardly news to anything that bothers to even modestly follow current events.
Well, that jamming station must not have worked well and I highly doubt it was put there by the Russians. I cannot think of a clear motive for it. Probably sold as surplus or exchanged for payment by a disgruntled soldier and found its way to Iraq.
Actually the stationS worked VERY well. They were targetted by laser guided bombs. The Russians also provided plans, parts, and know-how on how to assemble hand held versions which were also effective. France and Germany also provided technology consulting and some weapons...which is also why they, like Russia, didn't want the US to attack. They knew it would become difficult to get paid if the US destroys the country.
Slashdot Mirror
I was not able to get the processor above 40% utilization.
On a quad core system, 40% CPU = 1 core pegged (100%) and a second core at 60%. In other words, you simply didn't have enough going on concurrently. The reason why you didn't see a performance boost over that of a dual core system is because you never even pegged two cores, let alone four. This is exactly why most people will get zero (or nearly) benefit from a four core system. Heck, most games are still single threaded which means on dual core systems, the second CPU use mostly used to service device driver interrupts and maybe some audio processing. Probably helps smooth over all system latency but that's the biggest benefit most people will see from multiple cores.
Until we start to see a shift in programming in the market place, few people need dual cores, let alone quad cores.
Something else to consider, as most applications are single threaded, this means the only way concurrency can be increased is by running multiple applications (game + cd ripping + listening to mp3 + network game server). Running multiple applications means higher memory demands. As I still commonly see people buy systems with only 1GB of RAM or less, I'd argue this is yet another reason why few can take advantage of mutliple cores. Heck, these days, 512MB is used by the OS...so 1GB should be considered the minimum for even desktop users.
Yes, I'm fully aware there are exceptions...I've done a ton of SMP (8x) coding my self...so I understand what I'm talking about. Most of these exceptions tend to rare or professionally targetted.
Troll. You mean like you blindly ignored the previous post? I guess it sucks which reality gets in the way of an irrational rant.
In the far of chance you're not trolling, click on my name and read my posts on this very subject. Nuff said.
Your primise makes for a better movie plot then reality. Sorry, nice try. But, let's say the improbable odds are beaten. Big deal. They still need arming codes. This means a police, FBI, CIA, SWAT, and/or military interception of a truck...a shoot out...and the bomb is back in our hands. Worse case, a 500lbs bomb is dropped near the truck, or 20mm chain gun is fired ...containment is not lost...and it's back in our hands. The spies would then be rounded up...if they were still in the country and executed. End of story.
Like I said, makes for a great movie plot...just not realistic in the least.
Not if I could do it by dropping one bomb, especially if I thought I could always drop the second later if it proved necessary.
;) Heck, just turn on the History Channel from time to time.
Some of the details are still debated by historians but I believe the second bomb was primarily used as a message to the USSR. Before the first bomb had been dropped, the Japenese had already indirectly signaled they were ready to talk surrender...conditionally; though it was unknow what that meant. The first bomb was then dropped. Somewhere in this time table, the USSR then declares war on Japan for the sole purpose of claiming territory. The Japenese were already, effectively defeated, save only for an actual invasion. While the USSR already knew we had atomic bombs in development (because of spies), IIRC, the dropping of the second bomb was leaked to the USSR through indirect channels. To me the political under pinnings are clear. While at the time, we were allies with the USSR, everyone understood it was more a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", type arrangement. To be clear, the USSR had disdain for the US even back then. They distrusted the US so much, the warning of Germany's attack arrived in plenty of time to counter it, yet it went completely unheaded. At the time, the USSR had a neutrality agreement in place with Germany.
In the long run, we needed a second front in the war on Germany so we supplied weapons of war and some logistics to them. Otherwise, they probably would have had their asses handed to them, despite Germany's complete stupidity and the horrid Russian winter.
Let's also not forget that immediately after WWII ended, Russia claimed half of Germany and attempted to claim all of it. This is what the Berlin Air Lift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_air_lift) was all about. And they did so with full intensions of claiming all of Germany, right our from under us. You need to remember, the USSR government was nothing but hostile asses despite being "allies"; before, during, and after the war.
The long of the short, the above is just the tip of the ice berg. I sincerely do believe dropping both bombs is easily justified, so long as the complete context is brought into light. If you seriously wonder about this stuff...there are probably a hundred books which cover different aspects of the politics surrounding the dropping of the bombs. I'm sure most of them will do a much better job of swaying you one way or the other then some loon, such as my self, on slashdot can do.
Cheers!
That's unique radiation...not radion...
Just FYI, most people don't realize that every nuke has a return address. Every nuke has a unique radion signature which identifies its source of enrichment. Ever reactor enriches slightly differently. This tidbit needs to be shared with more of the world. That way it's understood, should a nuke make it way from say, NK (Iran), and explode within a friendly border, NK (Iran) would suddenly start to glow very brightly.
Actually, that name is known to history directly because of the meddling of other nations. Most people believe Hitler was able to rise to power as a direct result of post-WWI sanctions impossed on Germany.
This is not to say I believe we should leave countries unchecked...I'm just saying the chess piece can fall face up or face down.
Which brings up an interesting point -- why was "unconditional surrender" necessary?
;) Given the choice, if you could save 300,000+ soldiers by dropping two bombs, would you do it? Remember, radiation sickness was not well understood and the true nature of the horror (RNA/DNA damage, mutation, blindness, horrid burns, etc) was only vaguely within grasp of the scientists which worked directly on the Manhattan Project. So given the choice between saving your own countrymen and killing people you would more than likely have to kill anyways...which would you pick? Since you seem to be crying for humanity, I assume the decision is obvious...just not easy...as it was for Truman at the time.
Ultimately, it wasn't. We allowed them to keep their emperor and agreed to not persue as a war criminal. In the end, that dicision allowed for much more rapid reconstruction of post-war Japan.
Furthermore, was it necessary to drop 2 nukes? Wouldn't a single city have made the point?
I see that another poster already hit the nail on the head. It was a bluff. Its intent was to signal to Japan (and the USSR) that we had a huge stock pile of these weapons and if they did not surrender, we would destroy the entire country from the air. Truth is, we used the only two weapons we had and it would have been another 18-24 months (IIRC) before we could have another weapon ready. This is why we did not forewarn, as we were afraid the weapon would not work and had nothing to replace it.
the Nazis generally held a similar view of Jews at the time.
While rumors ran throughout the world, truth is, most did not believe (perhaps by desire) what had been done to the Jews until the war was over. Even those that rescued Jews toward the end of the war often had trouble grasping what it was they were seeing. Don't get me wrong, during WWII, no one loved Germans, but by in large they up held their war time obligations. On the other hand, the Japenese were strange, unknown, different color, fanatics, who fought to the death and often to the last man, have been known to eat enemy soldiers (during mid to later part of the war), worshiped a man-god, sometimes carried swords, and were more brutal to each other than we were to most prisoners. Don't think for a second that people thought the Germans were even in the same book as the Japenese. Remember, most of the time, the Japenese would not even take prisoners...they would execute them in the field...and when they did, they often tortured and/or killed them for fun. The Japenese often used prisoners for sword practice. For the most part, Germany actually tried to meet its obligations. So, to say it again, while the Germans were considered war savages, the Japenese were considered sub-human...and not because of propaganda. Propaganda only made the divide even wider.
So the end justifies *any* means?
Sounds like you didn't do the math.
While this is a very odd thought, had we actually had to have invaded mainland Japan, and 300,000+ soldiers died, Truman himself could have been tried as a war criminal. As he had within his grasp to save those lives.
We had a just cause, but we did unjust things to achieve it.
War is never just. Period. I'm certainly not trying to justify every horrible action, on all sides, which were taken during the war. My comments are specifically focused on the use of the bombs on the Japenese. I believe it's very important to understand the nature of the enemy and the mindset of those involved at the time.
Lastly, which is a widely unpopular view, just imagine how many people's lives were ultimately saved by using nukes so early on. If the horrors were not understood, the world over, what are the odds you would have seen them used during the Korean Conflict? During the cold war? My personal belief is the use of those weapons on Japan saved 300,000+ soldiers, plus an untold more because the horror of their use has become imprinted in who we ar
It is possible that over the next few decades the US government will somehow change so that it would use nuclear weapons inappropriately.
Not likely. Odds are certainly greater than zero...but not by much.
It is possible that the use would be unintentional - either through malfunction in technology and command procedures, because someone with high level access turned out not to be trustworthy or simply because security measures were somehow inadequate.
Odds are much closer to zero than the first remark.
It is possible that the current US government would use nuclear weapons against a target that was not a population center such as a deep bunker.
Odds are already zero. Weapon advances have removed the need for this.
It is possible that some event will occur that at the time seems to be adequate justification for the use of nuclear weapons but that in hindsight it will not be.
This is certainly a legitimate concern. IMO, this is the only one worth entertaining.
Yes, we used them at the end of WW2 - to spare a couple of hundred thousand lives a traditional invasion would've cost.
...blah...blah...I'm ignorant...the US used nukes before...blah...blah...only stress just how ignorant they are on the subject. So please, put things in context. People need to understand, at that point in time in history, there wasn't anything lower, nothing more sub-human that a "Jap". People need to remember that the Japenese had already proven to be fearless fighters, fighting to almost the last man standing...while starving...while being admitted cannibols. At that point in time, they had some come-uppens coming... We had a new weapon...and a just cause. You do the math.
Just wanted to realy stress this bit. Great post BTW.
At that time, we had plans on the drawing board to invade Japan. The death toll for the allies was expected to be between 200,000-300,000; though more modern estimates push it as high as half million. So saying 300,000+ is probably the right starting number. The Japenese were almost all fanatics and were taught they would be protecting their god. As such, every man, women, and child, big enough to reload a weapon had already been indoctrinated to their country's defense. Some were issued weapons and bullets. Some were given just bullets. Some were told to use the family sword. Others still, were trained how to charge with pitch forks. If you thought stories of Germany's use of Bazooka Boys toward the end of the war were scary, you need to understand what we were in for going into Japan. It would have been expected to see children as young as 8 or 9 to actively been engaged in resisting the invasion. As such, using nukes served many puposes. One, was to demoralize Japan as much as possible to force them to the table for unconditional surrender. The other was to destroy some part of Japan's war industry. Another was to destroy as many posible combatants for the loom invasion which lay ahead.
People need to understand that the Japenese had been told the Allies were coming to rape every women and pillage every village. They were told all men would be executed. And most women would be horribly raped and tortured before being executed. The people had every intention of fighting to their last breath. Every last one of them.
So long story short, anyone that throws out
The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?
Anyone with a brain? The US has had nukes longer than anyone and ONLY used them at the end of WWII. Many people love to toss the factoid out that the US has previously used nukes but fail to think how many lives that has saved. What???? Seriously...think about it! Ignoring a million other tidbits, I'll just add the following. Just imagine nukes existing and had never even been used in anger. Russia has them. England and France have them. Now then, do you think people would understand the horror of these weapons, having never seen the effects it had on the Japenese? Do you think the masses would have the least bit understanding of what it is they plot to unleash? In my opinion, chances are, if the US had NOT used nukes at the end of WWII, you would have seen them used en mass during the Korean Conflict, or during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or just out of stupidity between the US and Russia during the cold war.
Having said all that...the US has had nukes longer and has NOT used them, even during some seriously hairy times. If anything, the US has proven they are, by far, the MOST trustworthy when it comes to nuclear deployment.
What you don't realize is nuclear weapons, over time, loss their ability to sustain critical mass. That's why we have some many nuclear simulations (previously done with below ground testing) which verify specific categories of different ages can still do their thing. Their goal is to maintain viable weapons (repair or replace) and destroy the old weapons which will no longer be effective. In the long run, the US winds up with fewer, more reliable weapons.
The US has a long history of owning nukes and a short history of actually using them on an enemy; twice now, in the same war. The easy money is the US has no desire to use nukes, save only defensively. Any rogue state associated with a significant nuclear or biological attach will more than likely feel the sting of a nuclear attack, country-wide. In other words, for all but the most insane, partisans understand they will be countryless should they ever do the unthinkable. Which brings us full circle. Those that are not complete nut jobs but have bought into what the insane, ignorant are selling, do understand that if they aid such attacks, their entire country will be forever gone. Gone will be all they knew and loved. This in turn helps create internal pressures to keep things in check.
Exactly! People around the world seem to forget that part of our checks and balances includes limited terms and the clock is ticking down for our current goon-squad. Hell, Bush wouldn't even be in office except for the fact that the Democrats are so inept. So long as the Democrats can provide anything of an alternative (unlike last election), the Democrats will walk with the title. That will likely mean a huge shift in US politics.
No, I think he's saying the best means of combating propaganda is with your own propaganda machine. This was proven even during WWII. Misinformation and propaganda have ALWAYS played key themes modern warfare.
And frankly, as often as US news completely distort, twist, purposely misreport, refuse to report, spin, and generally f-up the news, I'm looking forward to an official propaganda machine to help balance out what the mainstream media can't get right; despite it being their job. And no, that does not mean I am looking forward to drinking from the government's teet. It means it should help pressure the media to do their f-n job correctly...the first time.
That's because arguing with a light pole isn't constructive. You and I both know you're not going to change your position. You're confused. Period. You're confused by the fact that MANY laws in this country are technically unconstitutional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are the law of the law.
As a technical note, I 100% agree with your point. As a matter of reality, you're completely wrong.
It's pretty well established you're wrong...but if you want to believe otherwise...that's fine. Whatever.
Good; because that cliche isn't valid, and never was.
Actually it was and always has been. Your statement seems to imply you don't understand but then you go on to explain that you do. Very odd.
The simple fact is, yelling "fire" and causing a panic is NOT protected as free speech. Period. Thusly, the cliche is completely valid. In other words, if you yell, "FIRE!", and people panic and cause damage, injury, or death to themselves or others, you can not hide behind "your right to free speech." The law is very clear on this. In other words, YOU become responsible for both the civil and criminal liabilities and can not NOT claim constitution protection to fend off civil and criminal charges resulting from your action.
You are right that yelling fire, in of its self, is not a crime, but that has never been what that cliched expression has been about...which suggests where your misunderstanding originates. To further hammer this home, it's often recommended to yell fire if one is being robbed, assaulted, or kidnapped. While you are still not protected by free speech, the circumstances surrounding the event is generally thought to mitigate both criminal and civil actions which may follow.
The "VM or otherwise emulated" sounds like a solid swipe at Wine too.
That was a joke/dry humor. I was commenting on the stupidity of people here that are too lazy to do something as simple as Google but will troll/reply stating that it's all lies because you didn't spoon feed them some link on the Internet, which may or may not be true/accurate.
Sounds like you don't have the required plugins installed. Yahoo mail works without problem with FF and has for years. If you're having problems, it is not a FF issue.
I'm sorry...but according to the /. masses, if you don't have a link, you're a troll and everything you said is untrue. ;) I'm sorry, but since the masses generally can't be requested to google (or think) for themselves, they will be forced to hunt you down and kick your dog. If this behavior continues...they may even taunt you a second time.
Is it possible, under order of the state, all of North Korea jumped up and down at the same time; thusly providing for the measured activity. They could then release a little nuclear waste into the air for good measure?
And maintaining a jet rating requires constant recurrency training. Operation of a jet is also very costly. So to even be in the position to fly a VLJ, you need lots of free time, lots of money, and your will in good order. This is not to say VLJs are dangerous...they are not. VLJ are dangerous to the low time, low skilled pilots to which they appeal.
Anyone remember the "Doctor killer" planes fromm the 70's and 80's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza. Compared to a VLJ, Bo's are snails...and as a private pilot, I can tell you Bo's are highly sought after. I don't have a hard time imagining VLJs helping to thin the gene pool of pilots that have more time and money then they have brains and talent. And trust me when I say, there is no shortage of pilots that shouldn't be.
The handheld information I got from my brother. He's an Apache Longbow pilot in the Army and was deployed in Iraq. The other information was available via all mainstream press during the early days of the war. For citing a source...ummm...how about ALL news agencies!? Shesh.
And you have to be pretty clueless to not know Germany, France, China, and Russia (plus many others) all sell arms to many countries the US considers suspect, all the while maintaining healthy trade and political contact with the US. This is hardly news to anything that bothers to even modestly follow current events.
Well, that jamming station must not have worked well and I highly doubt it was put there by the Russians. I cannot think of a clear motive for it. Probably sold as surplus or exchanged for payment by a disgruntled soldier and found its way to Iraq.
Actually the stationS worked VERY well. They were targetted by laser guided bombs. The Russians also provided plans, parts, and know-how on how to assemble hand held versions which were also effective. France and Germany also provided technology consulting and some weapons...which is also why they, like Russia, didn't want the US to attack. They knew it would become difficult to get paid if the US destroys the country.